7 ms·

First time that I read a comment that reminds everybody that this is only one side of the story. Do you make the same comment on all stories? and if not, why no

by GoToRO 9y ago

First time that I read a comment that reminds everybody that this is only one side of the story. Do you make the same comment on all stories? and if not, why not?

zakk 9y ago
I think it's clear that the other side of the story is a concept that applies chiefly to controversial stories. And this story is extremely controverial. No wonder people rightfully remind there's another side.
- archagon 9y ago
  Person sues powerful firm for rightful reasons → powerful firm hires people to stir the mud → mud-stirrers create controversy → story now has "two sides" → balance fallacy causes powerful firm to come out on top in the public eye. I think it's also important to remember this pattern. It's been coming up a lot in recent years.
  - zakk 9y ago
    > "rightful reasons" Not according to the judge. You may say they were rightful, and many people are discussing it. But at the same time you have to understand that a person trained and appointed to determine if the reasons are rightful, said they are not. That's were the story started to have two sides.
    - icebraining 9y ago
      Not according to the judge. Jury.
      - zakk 9y ago
        Right, I am not used to the American system, and I assumed that the decision had been taken by a judge.
    - Powerofmene 9y ago
      Let's remember that lack of provable evidence does not mean that the harassment and retaliation did not occur. It simply means she did not prove her case with admissible evidence in order to win in court. Short of having an audio or video tape, a couple witnesses, or written documents of propositions or threats to ruin her career at KP, she was in a he said she said scenario.
      - belorn 9y ago
        This is true for literal everything in the universe, and is the basis for both a philosophical concept called Russell's teapot and a religious one by Richard Dawkins called Flying Spaghetti Monster. Without provable evidence there isn't much we can assert, so it lands on trust and which side people feel is right. The legal system follow closer the scientific model and demand that the case is proven rather than disproved.
        Powerofmene 9y ago
        However you are forgetting in our court systems evidence can be thrown out because it was not admitted according to the Rules of Civil/Criminal/Appellate Procedures. At that point it isn't about trust or what people feel, it is only about evidence a jury can consider. It would be akin to having to acquit someone you feel is quite because the state failed to make their case or because the state made their case but screwed up something on a technicality and now you cannot consider that single piece of evidence in deciding which side prevails. In courts there is proof, evidence and admissible evidence. At the end of the day only the latter matters.
        belorn 9y ago
        So was evidence thrown out because of procedure violation in this case? I would note that this aspect is a construct of common law. In civil law all evidence is admissible, and the facts that would cause evidence to be inadmissible in common law would simply be additional context in civil law.
        9y ago

by GoToRO 9y ago

First time that I read a comment that reminds everybody that this is only one side of the story. Do you make the same comment on all stories? and if not, why not?

zakk 9y ago

I think it's clear that the other side of the story is a concept that applies chiefly to controversial stories. And this story is extremely controverial. No wonder people rightfully remind there's another side.

archagon 9y ago
Person sues powerful firm for rightful reasons → powerful firm hires people to stir the mud → mud-stirrers create controversy → story now has "two sides" → balance fallacy causes powerful firm to come out on top in the public eye. I think it's also important to remember this pattern. It's been coming up a lot in recent years.
- zakk 9y ago
  > "rightful reasons" Not according to the judge. You may say they were rightful, and many people are discussing it. But at the same time you have to understand that a person trained and appointed to determine if the reasons are rightful, said they are not. That's were the story started to have two sides.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    Not according to the judge. Jury.
    - zakk 9y ago
      Right, I am not used to the American system, and I assumed that the decision had been taken by a judge.
  - Powerofmene 9y ago
    Let's remember that lack of provable evidence does not mean that the harassment and retaliation did not occur. It simply means she did not prove her case with admissible evidence in order to win in court. Short of having an audio or video tape, a couple witnesses, or written documents of propositions or threats to ruin her career at KP, she was in a he said she said scenario.
    - belorn 9y ago
      This is true for literal everything in the universe, and is the basis for both a philosophical concept called Russell's teapot and a religious one by Richard Dawkins called Flying Spaghetti Monster. Without provable evidence there isn't much we can assert, so it lands on trust and which side people feel is right. The legal system follow closer the scientific model and demand that the case is proven rather than disproved.
      - Powerofmene 9y ago
        However you are forgetting in our court systems evidence can be thrown out because it was not admitted according to the Rules of Civil/Criminal/Appellate Procedures. At that point it isn't about trust or what people feel, it is only about evidence a jury can consider. It would be akin to having to acquit someone you feel is quite because the state failed to make their case or because the state made their case but screwed up something on a technicality and now you cannot consider that single piece of evidence in deciding which side prevails. In courts there is proof, evidence and admissible evidence. At the end of the day only the latter matters.
        belorn 9y ago
        So was evidence thrown out because of procedure violation in this case? I would note that this aspect is a construct of common law. In civil law all evidence is admissible, and the facts that would cause evidence to be inadmissible in common law would simply be additional context in civil law.
        9y ago